User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [10] September 27, 2014 at 9:32am


    *checks calendar*

    *sees that it’s nowhere near April 1*

    Huh? This isn’t “multidirectional.” I can imagine some Mission Impossible type situations where somebody’s looking through a very narrow sight, where this might actually help, but otherwise, it doesn’t really qualify as a cloaking device, anymore than a normal microscope does just because when you look through the scope you don’t see the doughnut-shaped region around the tiny circle it’s zoomed in on.

    A cloaking device has to wrap around an object, and itself not be visible, while active. How would you apply this to cloak a person from multiple directions? A thousand lenses sticking out in all directions? That would bring MORE attention, not less lol!

    Maybe cloaking devices are possible but personally I think we’re nowhere near them, except possibly some kind of HD wraparound screen/camera system (which is more like active camouflage than true cloaking as the terms are normally used in fiction). Stories that brag about them always turn out to be hype, lately. *shrugs*

  • [-1] September 25, 2014 at 5:44pm

    “Using the laws of Hermeneutics to exegete Matt 18 and John 20 you will see that within the context of the verses the subject is forgiveness.”

    Yes? Isn’t that pretty obvious from the verses themselves, since forgiveness is mentioned in both? I’m not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you could clarify. :)

    “Binding and loosing is about freeing your self and others through forgiveness and keeping yourself bound to those who have hurt you when you don’t forgive.”

    Well, maybe, but it appears from the historical evidence that that is not the case. See my previous posts and quotes from tektonics on this. ^_^ I’m curious why you state this as a certainty — where does the Bible state this, in your view? :)

    Your other points are very good. =)

    Fascinating BTW that apparently at least two people disagree with my previous posts, as per the thumbs. I would ask them to please explain why. I supported my answers, apparently soundly, and I didn’t go so far as to call it certain anyways. Apparently to some people, caution is disapproved of. 0_o

  • [-2] September 25, 2014 at 12:51am

    Tektonics goes on:

    “The action described (v. 17) is the disfellowship of an unrepentant sinner from the community of believers, something which in turn is recognized in Heaven. This is the only context for this instruction. It does not even have tangible, earthly results; it is an issue of status.

    Whether this was an irreversible procedure — whether the apostasy was permanent — is a topic reserved for our discussion on perseverance of the saints (link 1 below). However, Keener notes that “Jewish excommunication even in its long-term form was normally reversible if repentance took place”.”

    So, it sounds like the only thing in the jurisdiction may be “this person is part of our Christian community”. When people decide that the person will not be part of their group, God is aware of it; he is not in denial about the fact. So it may be just a way of saying that God continues to respect his rule of freewill (not surprising!).

    Whether this means the person becomes unsaved or not is not part of the discussion. If it does, it may be reversible, so this would not be referring to the subject of God’s foreknowledge of their ultimate choice, but more of a “current status” thing while they’re alive. But other parts of the Bible make it clear without conditionals that salvation is a personal choice, so I would say that meaning is pretty clearly ruled out. That is between the individual and God.

  • [-2] September 25, 2014 at 12:44am

    By the way, here’s a tidbit about that verse from

    “Verse 18 refers to binding and loosing, a metaphor in this period to judicial authority. The allusion is to the fact that in Jewish thought of the time, “the halakic decisions of the community have the authority of heaven itself.” [Keener, 454] The word for “thing” (pragma) is “a term frequently limited to judicial matters.” (Blomberg commentary on Matthew, 281; Harrington commentary on Matthew, 269).”


    1) It is the -community- that “binds and looses” in this figure of speech, not individuals. So, your idea about different individuals cancelling each others’ wishes out is moot; rather, it’s like a vote (or really the votes of the minority are cancelled out, and the excess remaining in the majority carry the day).

    2) It refers to judicial matters only, apparently; things that are already defined as within the community’s “jurisdiction” or authority. So, to know what those things are, you have to read the rest of Scripture to find the context. :) It thus implies that some things will be off-limits; not part of “whatever” (and the reader/hearer at the time would understand that by virtue of this figure of speech being used, since that’s how it was used in the culture of the time). So yes, as I suggested earlier, there are things in God’s will we can’t override. (BTW, remember that OT priests had to follow rules too.)

  • [-1] September 25, 2014 at 12:34am

    “The work of proving it is all on the side of the people who make the claim. It’s like if I claim there’s a Quaker Oats box buried in the red sand of Mars with all the winning lottery numbers in it for the rest of 2014.”

    It sounds like “it” from your previous post is this pastor’s belief that God is leading him to do this, so this is not at all an apt analogy. You need invest nothing in that claim. What actually needs proving (and has been proven) is God himself. Whether God actually is leading him to do this, or if it’s the wrong call, we have no real way to know at this point, but we don’t need to know either. But it may indeed be the case; if he honestly feels that way, why should he not be allowed to say so?

  • [-1] September 25, 2014 at 12:28am

    eutope, the problem is that logic only seems to be involved with that attitude “in name only” — you don’t get to declare yourself logical just by claiming it, or reciting it as you heard it from other atheists. You have to actually prove it with SOUND logic.

    It’s actually illogic that is behind nontheism, and some ignorance. Logic shows us, through things like the causality proof etc. etc. (I’m sure readers of my posts don’t want it all repeated yet again here :P), that God MUST exist. And it’s also not logical to lump the single infinite God that results from that proof with finite beings (real or mythical); finite beings may or may not exist, but true infinity MUST, and that means God (as intelligence must be a part of true infinity, obviously).

    Finally, notice you speak of not knowing the evidence — that’s not enough; the urgency of the question (since it related to your eternal endpoint) means that we should all SEEK evidence. Having done that for many years now I can honestly say I can’t NOT see the evidence. It’s everywhere, and everything. Literally. It all fits perfectly with the God of the Bible. No other explanation makes sense.

    Ah, but it DOES require -actual thought- to understand. :) But it’s infinitely worth it.

  • [-2] September 24, 2014 at 9:57pm

    “Please explain (using scripture) how competing/opposing bindings and loosings on earth are bound and loosed in heaven?”

    The question assumes that the “bindings/loosings” refers to some kind of human authority over God’s will. It does not — God’s will is absolute and is based on his omniscience, deriving from his infinite, beyond-time nature (so that he has infinite processing power to determine what is right and wrong, and the ideal events in full complexity).

    You shouldn’t be building major theology on an obscure proof-text like this; instead look at the entire Scripture in context. :) Binding and loosing almost certainly refers to something else besides what you have in mind here.

  • [-3] September 24, 2014 at 9:51pm

    “John 20:21
    ‘As the Father has sent me, I am sending you……. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’

    1. Does Jesus command AFTER the resurrection cancel out His command BEFORE the resurrection?”

    That’s verse 23, snoop, not 21. Anywho, it’s an interesting question, but it seems to ring of proof-texting. I’m not seeing a lot of context to this verse, but the idea that if we aren’t forgiving, God won’t forgive us, has at least a whole parable of context behind it. I would be cautious in interpreting John 20:23 if I were you on this basis; the meanings of the key words or the subjects that they are referring to might not be what you’re assuming.

    Remember also that Jesus said that all sins are forgiven, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (which is believed to mean refusing salvation forever; the Spirit is given upon acceptance, recall). But if somebody refuses salvation, then ALL their sins are held against them. So, my guess is this is a way of saying that whoever you succeed in helping to accept Jesus will be forgiven, and whoever you don’t reach will not be. (“You” presumably being collective-you to the church as a whole.) But without more direct clarifying context, perhaps from other gospels if there are overlapping segments, I would just withhold judgment on it. Either way, we are ordered to be forgiving.

  • [-1] September 24, 2014 at 2:55pm

    I can’t entirely blame him — sadly this kind of mindset is all too common among Christians, who may actually believe, but don’t KNOW WHY they believe. Others might NOT actually believe but are basically pretending they do.

    I now understand the answers to questions like “Where is God?”, so now I never waver in belief that God exists. I still have questions about other details, but those can be solved with investigation and thought. Then again, I also couldn’t accept for a long time because I HAD to understand enough first, so I’m not saying my approach was superior (what if I had died in that time before accepting?). Still, I hope he does the homework to find out those answers, because faith should grow and be strengthened by knowledge after accepting, no matter where we’re at. :)

  • [4] September 24, 2014 at 11:16am

    Wow. Rush is evil, but the waitress gives the money to abortion. Which murders people. That’s… not evil, I guess.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 24, 2014 at 11:11am

    So we have another atheopath organization trying to impose their views on us. Let’s look at that acronym. AHA? (Clever I guess, smarter than FFRF/FFFF (Freedom From Freedom Foundation) lol… but we can still salvage it.)

    AHA = ACHOO (Anti-Christian Humanist Oppressive Organization)

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:44am

    Another link that sums up the problem well:

    This clearly shows the long ages to be dogma believed OVER the evidence, NOT based ON evidence. What you said, fom, about evolutionist scientists working hard to falsify their own views is simply false. It makes for a noble-sounding argument, but anybody can make such claims — they don’t stand up to testing.

    “…but test everything; hold fast what is good.”

    1 Thessalonians 5:21

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:38am

    And that there is any C-14 in them also is reason to possibly question conventional wisdom. But why have we not heard about any of this in the news? Shouldn’t there have been at least a 15-second blip from one of the media outlets? But the media have been silent and the abstract pulled from the meeting proceedings.”


    1) Caution was taken at all stages to avoid contamination. (Admittedly, according to a creationist source, but as said before, evolutionists can falsify this! The whole point of bringing this up was to show that they do NOT worry a lot about trying to falsify evolution. The money is not spent on this kind of research — it’s given to those who give lip service to total support of evolution instead, and those who dare question are punished.)

    2) It came from multiple sites, and even multiple species.

    3) It agrees with the soft tissue finds (as said above).

    4) A totally different behavior by the evolutionist media is seen. When the latest monkey is found, prior to all research it is trumpeted proudly as the next transitional form (the later real work that inevitably disqualifies it is only quietly reported if ever). But THIS find, EVEN IF TENTATIVE is SILENCED. There’s no reports that it MAY show the fossils to be young, or that the C14 MAY be there due to some other unexplained cause, etc. It’s just… suppressed.

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:29am

    BTW, about the C14 — well, first, keep in mind it’s not the ONLY evidence, there’s also the soft tissue remnants (Dr. Schweitzer’s discovery) — but that aside, here’s a quote about the possibility of contamination, and some other great points too:

    “The samples were meticulously handled and cleaned to avoid possible contamination. The carbon-14 (C-14) levels in these samples were measured using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The resultant C-14 ages obtained from these samples were consistently in the 22,000 – 39,000 years range. The fact that the samples were from a variety of species and sites all giving consistent results greatly reduces the chance that the results are from contamination.

    The theoretical upper limit for C-14 dating is ten times the half-life, or about 57,000 years. The proposed practical upper limit for C-14 dating is between 40,000 – 50,000 years. While some samples fell close to the 40,000 year upper limit, 16 out of 20 (80%) were aged at 35,000 years or younger, well within the acceptable upper C-14 dating limits.

    While other researchers have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones and C-14 dates in these ranges, this current study has been the most comprehensive. The fact that there is any collagen at all remaining in these bone samples is amazing, considering that they are supposed to be older than 65 million years. Protein just doesn’t hang around that long! [...]

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:10am

    Don’t forget, too, that you would need to explain OUR disagreement with YOU in a similar way; that either we are ignorant or suppressing what we know to be true. You have to believe that “denial is a thing” (besides, psychologists have shown conclusively that it is anyways). You don’t want to face that you might be the one in denial, and not us, but if you were intellectually honest (or right), I would expect you to admit the possibility as I do. That you have to dismiss that it’s even possible that deep down you know the truth but don’t face it, may be the strongest evidence of all that it’s the case for you. If you knew you were right based on sound logic, not emotional reasons, you wouldn’t need to fear this possibility.

  • September 17, 2014 at 10:45am

    No. :) But it WOULD be pretty obviously a psychological shield. I understand you may not have time, and these are things you need time to seriously think about. But notice your approach of reply enables you to feel superior while not addressing anything I said…

  • September 17, 2014 at 10:18am

    BTW, to this part:

    “while i was capable of believing, i really liked being a christian. i felts safe and secure in christs love.”

    I won’t overthink the first part, but it does sound actually like an admission that you may be suppressing the truth. If you’re INCAPABLE of believing then it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, you won’t believe. I’ll hope it was just poor word choice though. :)

    Anyways, you keep saying you were a Christian, that you believed, but I haven’t seen you yet explain why you believed. You mentioned apologetics before, but gave no specifics (not that I would really expect you to in that statement, but yeah), and here I’m just seeing a lot of emotional stuff. I’m also trying to hope you didn’t mean your statement about logic the way it sounded… but regardless, I can’t help but think that so far you’re just demonstrating what I’ve thought for a long time; that most atheists who “used to be Christians” didn’t actually know WHY it was true; didn’t know the things I know, and still don’t, or don’t want to admit it’s sound for emotional reasons.

    It sounds kind of like where I was when I was young, before I entered a time of doubt and eventually accepted “for real” based on the support.

    And it’s kind of like saying “I used to feel all warm inside to think the Earth was a sphere” but then reading a bunch of Flat Earther sites almost exclusively and choosing to blindly trust them over us Spheroid Earthers.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:57am

    The same rules for science in other areas of life are not applied to evolution. When the hypothesis fails, it is fair to adapt the hypothesis, don’t get me wrong, but the fact that the biblical “hypothesis” is being successful over and over again with highly specific, falsifiable claims is being ignored in favor of this constantly failing but being rescued hypothesis of evolution. That does make evolution a dogma/religion/worldview, not science.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:56am

    If in fact the C14 is not consistently found in dinosaur fossils, evolutionists should be able to falsify the results themselves by testing other fossils. :) If anything, the fact that this scientist made such a mistake in the past is likely to motivate him to be extra careful to avoid that mistake again. He is also not the only scientist who worked on this test.

    As for your answer on the noah genetics thing, I don’t really even see an answer there. Claiming confirmation bias when you’re confronted with evidence you don’t like wouldn’t be accepted by you if we did it (well, we DO think it’s there, but we debunk false evidence through logic and science, not merely claiming bias!). (Watch, now he’ll say it would, just to spite me lol.) This approach seems to be pretty normal with you — rather than showing the evidence faulty, or just admitting tentatively that it seems convincing, you simply try to cast doubt, never conclusively. You’ll search around as if in a kind of somewhat calm desperation looking for any ‘dirt’ on the people involved, but can’t seem to show how the evidence itself is unsound.

    Now I -expect- that, of course. I’m just saying, if you were right, that’s NOT what we would expect.

    “i understand you think its dogma. but why? the methodology is used because it works.”

    I can’t speak for him, but its predictions consistently failing is a big part of it.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:56am

    This is not a useful response, since somebody who is suppressing the truth can’t be expected to admit it. ;)

    “in as far as i can know such things about my motivations, i know paul is wrong about me.”

    That’s the thing — your conscious mind is not really capable of truly understanding your subconscious. It’s linear and thus very slow and limited (everybody’s is), but the subconscious can use parallel processing and is thus very fast to reach sound conclusions, many at once, etc. Your subconscious also can’t help but run an analysis even if your conscious mind wants to avoid thinking about it. So simple basics like the causality proof of God, IMO your subconscious can’t help but already have run and concluded God must exist. I think this is what Paul was referring to. And since the causality proof is SOUND, this makes perfect sense. And it PREDICTS your reaction right here!

    “i couldnt help but notice that in the c-14 and dinos article, one of the authors on the paper is hugh miller. miller has already demonstrated he is an idiot when it comes to contaminating fossils with recent carbon. in the nineties, he carbon dated dinosaur fossils with shellac on it. unsurprisingly, he got a date for the age of the shellac.”

    That’s a fair caution. However, it doesn’t demonstrate that he did the equivalent NOW — that is ad hominem fallacy; attacking the man, rather than the evidence.

123 To page: Go